looking to the order and meanes which God in his word hath prescribed for the working of those graces hee doth not giue power and efficacy enough to worke repentance before faith in Christ and that therefore it cannot be so wrought Secondly against them that hold repentance cannot be wrought before faith in Christ as well as that it is not begun before it for this is their opinion as well as that in the sense that I haue named It is direct to prooue that repentance may bee begunne before this faith and to prooue that repentance may bee begunne before this faith it is to good purpose to shewe that as great a worke as the beginning of repentance is wrought before it viz a beliefe of the Gospell for the full working of one euangelicall and supernaturall grace in all the parts of it is a greater worke then the beginning of another and the working of that by fewer meanes is a greater worke then the beginning of this by more These points haue beene prooued in my Treatise concerning the working of a beliefe of the Gospell and the beginning of repentance and if they had answered them well they should haue prooued either that a beliefe of the Gospell is not a harder worke in it selfe considered and looking vnto the meanes of working then a beginning of repentance or if it were that it will not follow thereupon that therefore a beginning of repentance is not wrought before faith in Christ but neither of these are done and therefore for all this the argument stands vpright in that probability of truth which it hath except they will take the state and authority vpon them that their very deniall shall be a sufficient confutation Indeed they cauill at some particular passages in the prosecution of this argument but they are not worth the answering here because my argument is no whit weakened by them and besides they haue beene and shall bee vpon other occasions answered else where and so at last I come to my last Argument The Tryall Repentance is begunne before faith because it was preached before faith for it was the first Doctrine that was preached by Iohn Baptist The sixt Argument by Christ by his Disciples and Apostles The Exception To this Argument they answere first by saying it is but a weake one and that by the iudgement of Mr. Caluin secondly by denying both antecedent and the consequence The Antecedent because say they God doeth not alwayes call for repentance first but sometimes for faith in Christ Acts 10.43 and though he did yet is faith included The consequence for say they it doth not follow that because repentance was the first Doctrine that was preached therefore it was the first grace that was wrought in the hearers first because when God calleth for any grace none of the rest are excluded but included rather Acts 16.31 Secondly because that which is first placed is not alwayes first wrought the last in words may be the first in sense The Apology First I answere generally to the whole Argument If this were all the Arguments that could be brought to prooue the point and that the weight of the cause lay on this foundation then would it be but weakely supported it might truely be said of it as Mr. Caluin doth that it is too weake Caluins Institution l. c. 5. for Mr. Caluin speakes of such as onely relye on this Argument which I doe not the contrary is seene by fiue other on foure whereof I relye and not on this sixt nor the fift Secondly Musculus a learned interpreter from hence that repentance was the first Doctrine which those preached plainly collects that the Doctrine of repentance hath the beginning and principles of the Doctrine of grace his wordes are these In this place saith Musculus Iohn requires Repentance Musculus comment on Math. 3.2 which the Prophets call turning to God and of which the Angell pâ— his father in minde when he said he shoulâ— turne many of the childaen of Israel to thâ— Lord Luk. 1.17 viz to call sinners to thâ— acknowledgement of their euill life and tâ— a change of their minde and true piety tâ— God and this preaching of repentance iâ— such that not onely is it necessary to the eâ— those that haue sinned may bee capable of grace but without which no man hath accesse vnto the throne of grace according tâ— Heb. 6.12 And this is the Reason why Iohn and Christ also and after him thâ— Apostles did first preach repentance tâ— them that were to be conuerted vnto God So that in Musculus opinion Repentance in nature goes before accesse to the throne of grace and before our being capable of grace and consequently before faith by which onely wee haue this liberty viz because Repentance was the first Doctrine which they preached to their hearers Secondly and more specially in defence of the Antecedent I say that whereas for the confutation of my Antecedent they bring two Reasons I will answere to them seuerally First God doeth not alwayes call for faith in Christ first for in that place first he preached Iohns Baptisme of Repentance ver 37. and of the day of Iudgement v. 42. which comparing Acts 13.24 with Acts 17.30.31 require repentance Secondly though faith were included in the Doctrine of repentance yet the including of it in that Doctrine Acts 10.43 No more prooues the precedency in nature of faith in Christ vnto Repentance which is their opinion then the precedency of Repentance vnto Faith which is mine To the consequence I answere first that notwithstanding their Reasons it is very probable if we consider these particulars First that the preaching of Iohn Christ and the Apostles was effectuall to some of their hearers Secondly that this efficacy of their preaching consisted in working through Gods blessings in their hearers an ability to doe the duties they taught and whereunto they did exhort Thirdly that this ability of doing those duties was wrought in them as the Doctrines were taught or when they were preached as appeares plainely in the Apostles for the rest Acts 14.1.2 Acts 18.8 So that if Repentance were the first duty which all these taught teaching were the meanes whereby they were inabled to doe it and this ability were giuen to them anâ— wrought in them as they preacht it thâ— must Repentance bee the first grace thaâ— was wrought because it was the first thaâ— was preacht and taught in their ministery I meane vsually and ordinarily not limiting God alwayes thus to worke without alteration the rather because they were wrought by preaching to make them capable of saluation 1. Cor. 1.21 And they might as conueniently be wrought in their hearers for that end according to the order in which they are taught as any otheâ— way or in any other order and manner Secondly I answere to the consequence for as much as it is euident that neither Iohn noâ— Christ neither the Disciples noâ— Apostles did hit vpon the
but by hearing faith preached which is the meaning of that place Gal. 3.2 For at the preaching of the Gospell the Doctrine of faith and vpon the beleeuing thereof were they giuen Act. 10.41.44 2. The spirit of adoption is not giuen before faith in Christ for that is the grace which instrumentally and so onely giues vs prerogatiue and title to our adoption euen as it onely but instrumentally onely receiues Christ and his benefits Eph. 1.13 Gal. 3.26 Rom. 8.13 3. The gifts and graces of the spirit sufficient to saluation are not giuen before faith in Christ Heb. 11.6 Rom. 5.1 2. 4. The gift of sanctification is not giuen before Faith in Christ But for all this will it not follow that before Faith in Christ the spirit is no way giuen the contrary may be seene in illumination and a beleefe of the Gospell for these are gifts of the spirit and therefore parts of spirituall life in some sense 1. because they are supernaturall all naturall men haue them not nor are they wrought by the worke of nature in any no not in the Elect 2. because blindenesse of minde and infidelity which is contrary thereto is a branch of spirituall death 3. The Spirit inhabitant cannot be in men before they haue faith in Christ but the Spirit assistant may and the exciting by assistance may Indeede Illumination and a beleefe of the Gospell are not spirituall life enough to saluation yet is it life enough by Gods blessing and further grace to produce Faith in Christ in the elect for within man and by the working of the Spirit there is no other worke but these and that which is wrought by these which perswades men to beleeue in Christ If illumination and a beleeue of the Gospell c. had no supernaturall life at all but were altogether dead workes then could they produce no such effect as faith and if they be not dead workes then haue they some life and if they haue some life then from the spirit and if from the spirit then may they be called branches of spirituall life and hee that hath them may be sayd to haue some spirituall life begunne in him because as hath beene sayd he hath some life in him more then naturall that is more then all naturall men haue The Exception There is no spirituall life begunne in men before Faith in Christ or faith in Christ is euery way the spirituall life of Christians because sanctification goes before iustification The Apology I answere in nature saanctification is begunne before iustification 1. because regeneration is begunne before iustification namely in illumination and other preparations as hath beene shewed before Secondly because faith it selfe is a sanctifying grace by their owne confession from Acts 15.9 and faith goes in nature before iustification Indeede iustification goes in nature before the perfection of our sanctification in all the parts of it and before the acceptation of it to saluation but iustification doth not go before any or euery measure of sanctification can any way be begunne The will of God in working is the Rule of perfection to the worke and then is it sayd to be perfect when it is wrought in part or in whole according to that perfection of parts or degrees which the Lord intends vnto it at seuerall times and by seuerall meanes The Lord is no way tied for shewing the perfection of his workemanshippe to finish a worke in all the parts of it at sundry times more then he is to finish it in all the degrees thereof at sundry times The Triall Repentance is not begunne before faith in Christ The fift Obiection because repentance is a proper effect and fruite of the Gospell The Exception This Argument is disclaimed therefore is it vaine to spend time about it for if they will not acknowledge and confesse it I haue no reason to confute it any further Onely I would haue the world beleeue I doe not faine an enemy and then flourish against him For two learned and godly Ministers whose worthy workes are in print haue vsed the same They which bring this proposition Repentance is the proper effect and fruite of the Gospell beleeued to prooue that repentance is not begun before iustifying faith must be vnderstood to meane by a beleefe of the Gospell either that beleefe which is faith in Christ or that onely which is an assent vnto the truth of the Gospell If they meane by a beleefe of the Gospell faith in Christ then must it be their argument which I haue propounded to prooue that repentance goes not before faith in Christ If they meane but an assent to the truth of the Doctrine of the Gospell then doe they meane that no other faith goes before repentance but that and then haue they two Diuines of our owne lesse on their side then they thought they had and I haue two more on mine for I hold that a beleefe of the Gospell goes before repentance and repentance before faith in Christ and let this be enough for that fift Obiection the sixt followes The Triall Repentance is not begunne before faith in Christ The sixt Obiection because it is not begunne before regeneration for regeneration is not begunne before faith in Christ This Argument was answered by denying the Antecedent viz. that Regeneration is not begunne before Faith in Christ and the reason of the consequence viz. that repentance is not begunne before regeneration The Exception For making good the Antecedent viz. this proposition regeneration is not begunne before faith in Christ they bring two reasons to which I will answere in order Regeneration is not begunne before Faith in Christ because it issues from Christ and from our vnion with him by faith 2. Corinth 5.17 Ephesians 2.10 Colo. 2.11 The Apology I answere first if by regeneration be meant our being made Gods children actually then I grant that our regeneration must needes flow from our vnion with him by faith but then it prooues not the Antecedent for the regeneration wee speake of is not our beeing actually made the sonnes of GOD but a worke of the Spirit beginning to fit vs for that but if by it they meane any or euery worke of the Spirit beginning to fit vs for regeneration and tending thereunto by GODS appointment as any worke of the Spirit in the vnderstanding or will of one that is elected to saluation to fit him for regeneration by faith then I say that such regeneration may be wrought before our actuall vnion with Christ by Faith and doth not issue from it It is true that Regeneration issues from Christ in the elect whether wee consider him as the efficient cause either by way of meriting it for vs or by working it in vs. Hebrewes 12.3 Ioan. 1.19 Ephesians 1.3 2.10 or as the finall cause Galath 4.19 But it is not true that regeneration so issues from Christ that there is not so much as any the least beginning of it wrought in
almost printed I deemed that GOD by his prouidence would haue me defend my selfe for the credit of my Ministery which is as tender as the apple of mine eye that cannot endure little motes of disgrace vniustly to dimme it much lesse such great beames of slander to put it out if it were possible Pudet hac opprobria nobis Et dici potnisse non potuisse refelli If the accusations were true it were better my booke were burnt in Paules Church-yard then sold there it were fitter for me to stand at a stake in Smithfield then in a Pulpet in the Church and if they be not true then is it not meete to suffer simple people to be seduced to beleeue them nor my selfe to be traduced by the report and beleefe of them neither of which can be auoyded without some answere Whether they be true or no I referre to the Christian Reader to determine when he hath read ouer the Defence of my Triall of Faith and this Apology for it In this action and accusation I will be but a Defendant I will not giue rebuke for rebuke 1. Pet. 3.9 onely I say the Lord rebuke him This is not my rebuke but the Lords nor is it against him but for him the Lord knoweth euen for his vnfeined humiliation and consolation in Christ Iesus And so letting passe in modesty the very words of the accusation as offensiue to moderate eares I proceede to answere the matter and first the heresie and blasphemy The heresie and blasphemy is instanced in three particulars 1. The first hereticall and blasphemous position is this Triall of faith p. 41. li. 30. I say Faith in Christ is the onely condition of the couenant of grace that is required of all those that are capable of saluation I answere this is not heresie nor blasphemy because the Doctrine of our Church sayth as much where it sayth Articles of religion in Q Elizabeths time Art 11. Ser. of saluation 1 part toward the end that we are iustified by faith onely is a most wholesome Doctrine and that Paule deelareth nothing Rom. 3.25 vpon the behalfe of man Concerning his iustification but onely a true and a liuely faith and afterward faith doth not shut out repentance hope loue dread and the feare of God to be ioyned with faith in euery man that is iustified but it shutteth them out from the office of instifying 2. A second Hereticall blasphemous Doctrine is I say God as soueraigne Lord of all can appoint what meanes hee will to make vs capable of life Neither is this an hereticall and blasphemous position because the power of God is to be considered two wayes Perk. gold chai ch 3. either actually or absolutely Gods absolute power is that by which hee can doe more then either he doth or will doe Math. 3.9 Phillip 3.29 Gods actuall power is that by which he causeth all things to be which hee freely willeth Psal 135.6 Now then where I say God as soueraigne Lord of all can appoint what meanes hee will to make vs capable of life I do not speake of his actuall power but of his absolute for I doe not meane Though the Lord hath actually willed and appointed that faith in Christ shall be the meanes to make vs capable of eternall life that is instrumentally onely and in no sense meritoriously yet God as soueraigne Lord of all can now appoint another meanes to make vs capable thereof as he would straine his wit to interpreat me But my meaning is which is euident by the context that before the Lord appointed and willed that faith in Christ should be that meanes by his absolute power as soueraigne Lord of all hee might haue appointed any other grace to haue beene the meanes instrumentally and conditionally to haue made vs capable of Heauen If God by his absolute power can do more then either he doth or will as is confest out of Mr. Perkins then in case God had not willed that Faith in Christ should be this meanes he might by his absolute power haue appointed any other meanes and consequently what meanes he would to make vs capable of life For that action which depends vpon Gods free will or ordination that by his absolute power he could haue done otherwise for that is the nature of free-will to do so as that they might haue done otherwise but the appointing of the meanes to make vs capable of saluation depends vpon Gods free-will and ordination therefore he might haue done otherwise and consequently by his absolute power he could haue appointed what meanes he would to make vs capable of saluation And that the appointing of the meanes to make vs capable of saluation depends on the free-will and ordination of God appeares because the merits of Chrâ—st depend therevpon according to that of Mr. Caluin Christ could not deserue any thing but by the good pleasure of God Caluin Iustit l. 2 1. 17. the 1. but because hee was appointed to this purpose with his sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and with his obedience to put away our offences c. Now if this be true in the meritorious cause of our saluation which doth purchase it much more is it in the instrumental which makes vs but persons capable of it now it is procured by him and so much for clearing the second supposed heresie and blasphemy The third hereticall blasphemous position is this that I say the act of faith which is beleeuing in Christ doth iustifie vs and is our righteousnesse Of this sentence I wil not say much here because I haue maintained it to be sound Doctrine in my sense in a priuate writing to himselfe which he promised to answere but yet hath not performed it as also in a publike defence in print and in the view of the world which was perused and also allowed by two very learned and godly Doctors of Diuinity for that end which I humbly pray the Reader to peruse for his satisfaction if hee be doubtfull euen as this Apology also hath beene prooued and approued by the same worthy Diuines And so I passe from the heresie and blasphemy with which he charges me to the periury lying and contradiction which is instanced by two particulars The first instance to prooue the periury lying and contradiction is this viz. because in my second Booke I protest I neuer wrote that Christ hath merited that faith should be our righteousnesse and iustifie vs Defence pag. 35. and yet in my first booke I say the act of faith iustifies vs for the merit of Christ Triall page 196. I answere in these two sentences I doe neither forsweare nor lye nor contradict my selfe because I do not affirme and deny one and the same proposition That I doe not in the two sentences forenamed Arist deinter lib 1. chap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ram. logi l. 2. cha 2. contradictio est quando idem axioma affirmatur negatùr deny
and affirme one and the same sentence or proposition is plaine because I doe not in one place deny Christ hath not merited that faith should be our righteousnesse and iustifie vs and in another place say Christ hath merited that faith shall be our righteousnesse and iustifie vs for I onely say faith iustifies vs for the merit of Christ So that the same b Martin in Ram. logis l. 2 c. 2. Diasceps quando idem consequens de eodem antecedente affirmatur negatur consequent not being affirmed and denied of the same Antecedent in both propositions therefore can there be no contradiction betweene them and consequently no lie and therefore no periury But it may be the propositions in the seuerall bookes are the same in sense and effect therefore if in one place I deny that Christ hath merited that faith should iustifie vs and in another place affirme as much in effect then haue I contradicted and consequently periured and lied I answere I haue not in effect contradicted my selfe first because iustification in the first sentence is taken for our being iustified formally or for the nature and being thereof and for that very thing whereby man of a sinner is made iust and in this sense it is true I neuer wrote that Christ hath merited that faith should be our righteousnesse and iustifie vs. In the latter sentence iustification is taken efficiently for our being iustified as by an efficient cause and in this sence I might truely say without contradiction to the former the act of faith doth iustifie vs as the instrumentall efficient for the merit of Christ viz. apprehended thereby that is faith as an instrument apprehends and applies Chriâ—ts merits for our iustification by them and in this sense I say in my first Booke Trial pag. 178. â—in 1. Faith iustifies vs not as it is in vs but as it rests on Christ and in this sence speakes the Synod of Dort faith iustifies in as much as it apprehends the merits of Christ Synod of Dort in â—ng pa. 23. er 4 For euen as if I say a spoone feedes a childe my meaning is not that the spone is the foode and nourishment of the child but onely that it is the instrument whereby the foode and nourishment is reached and conueied to the childe and by which he receiues that food whereby he is nourished Euen so when I say Faith is our righteousnesse and iustifies vs I doe not meane that faith is that righteousnesse it selfe by which we shall be presented and stand righteous before God in his sight for that onely is the righteousnesse 〈◊〉 Christ actiue and passiue but that faith 〈◊〉 the instrument whereby the righteousnesse of Christ is reached and communicated vnto vs and whereby I receiue it to my iustification Of the manner of this participation and communion or imputation I haue declared my minde fully and plainely in the Defence Defence pa. 2â— to 30. to which I referre the Reader Secondly I answere In the first proposition my meaning is I neuer wrote that the merit of Christ is communicated to faith and that by communion therein faith iustifies vs as the Papists speake of the merits of our workes when they are dipt or died in Christs blood For then should faith either deserue or be the iustice whereby of sinners wee are made righteous both which are farre and â—uer were from my thoght the Lord knowes And in the second sentence my meaning is the merits of Christ come betweene our faith and iustification not to giue vertue vnto faith to iustifie vs but to leade vs vnto Christ by whose merit we may receiue that righteousnesse whereby of sinners we are made iust Triall pag. 199. and in this sense I say in my first Booke that faith iustifies vs rather then any other grace of God namely because it makes vs goe out of our selues to seeke to the all sufficiency of the death and obedience of Christ to rest and trust in him for iustification and saluation Ser. of saluation 〈◊〉 part the end according to the Homily as great and as godly a vertue as the liuely faith is yet it putteth vs from it selfe and remitteth or appointeth vs vnto Christ for to haue onely by him remission of our sinnes and iustification So that our faith in Christ as it were saith vnto vs thus It is not I that take away your sinnes but it is Christ onely and to him onely I send you for that purpose forsaking therein all your good vertues thoughts and workes and onely putting your trust in Christ The second instance by which he assayes to argue me of periury lying and contradiction is in my second Book I protest I neuer wrote in my first Booke that faith is our righteousnesse and yet in my first Booke I say faith is our righteousnesse I answere that this doth not argue me of periury lying and contradiction because I doe not speake of faith being our righteousnesse in the same sense and respect in both for in the first sentence righteousnesse must be taken properly and formally for that very iustice whereby men are made iust and righteous as by a forme and of sinners made righteous formally And in the second sentence righteousnesse is taken improperly for an attribute giuen to faith and it is the same with obedience which the Apostle Paule attributes to faith Romans 16.26 For beleeuing in Christ is obedience to that commandement of God which bids vs beleeue in Christ 1 Iohn 3.23 and not beleeuing in Christ is disobedience Iohn 3.36 and in this sense it is true faith is our righteousnesse Rom. 1.11 when it is wrought in vs as well as faith is ours when it is wrought in vs. And when I say faith is our righteousnesse I doe not meane it is the righteousnesse by which wee stand truely and formally righteous before GOD and in which wee shall bee presented pure and without spotte of sinne before Him but in this sense that it is all the righteousnesse and all the obedience which GOD workes in vs and requires of vs as an instrument apprehending to make vs capable of Christs righteousnesse According to the Doctrine of our Church Paul declareth here Rom. 3.25 Ser. of saluation part 1 toward the end nothing on the behalfe of man but onely a true and liuely faith Not that the act of faith is our formall righteousnesse and iustifies vs meritoriously for or by any worthinesse inherent in it selfe or infused thereunto by Christs merits but that it is called righteousnesse in a borrowed sense because it is only the instrument appointed by God whereby we are to apprehend and lay hold vpon Christs merits which are our righteousnesse and the onely meritorious cause of our iustification In the second accusation he doth argue me onely of lying and contradiction which he indeauours to do by this because in my second booke I say my first Booke was not a Treatise of
he beleeue in Christ This I shall easily disprooue by one that was no Proselyte nor euer had faith in Christ for ought the Scripture saith yet doeth the Lord say of him concerning one action viz Gen 20.6 the taking away of Sarah Abrahams wife that he knew he did it in the integrity of his heart now if the heart of one man may be sincere in respect of Chastity before he haue Faith in Christ why may not the heart of another bee vpright in respect of Repentance before faith in Christ I doe not say or meane with that integrity that is acceptable to God vnto saluation but with that which is some way acceptable viz for the obtayning of temporall blessings and remouing the like euils and punishments For as a regenerate man though otherwise sincere and vpright generally yet in some particular actions may dissemble and play the hypocrite as Dauid in the matter of Vriah and Bathsheba euen so an vnregenerate man may in many of his action generally be naught and vnsound deceitfull and hypocriticall and yet in some one sincere and vpright To the third Exception In like manner their third exception iâ— friuolous for it supposeth an vntruth for the foundation of it viz that no true re-repentance can goe before sauing grace or faith in Christ the contrary is plaine in the Niniuites who are said to repent Ionah 3.4 5. â—at 12.41 and yeâ— is it not reuealed that euer they had a sauing faith If any say that theirs was not true repentance It is disprooued first because it was wrought through a beliefe of the word preached secondly because the holy Ghosâ— calles it Repentance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Math. 12.41 thirdly because it was manifested so to be by the signes of their sorrow for their sinnes in fasting and humiliation and by the practise of their purpose in leauing their sinnes Ionah 3.10 Or if any chance to say the Niniuites had sauing grace or faith in Christ It cannot bee proued seeing the sauing grace of Iesus Christ was neuer preached to them by the Gospell for ought can be shewed Indeed their repentance in some sence might be cald a sauing grace because it saued them from a temporall destruction threatned to come vpon them within forty dayes if they had not repented but it saued them not from the eternall punishment of their finnes And now to the last Exception In handling the exposition of my position It is alleadged that I say To the fourth Exception a man may die with this beginning of Repentance and not be saued I answere that they mistake and doe me wrong in this collection for it is not a flat position but a supposition not that an Elect child of God may die with this repentance but that if it were possible for him to dye in this state hauing onely sorrow for his sinnes and purpose to leaue them and not faith in Christ yet could he not be saued and my reason is because he hath not that grace that entitles him to Christs benefits and vnites him vnto Christ for the partaking of them without which no man or woman of yeeres of discretion and vnderstanding can be saued If any obiect it was to no end to make a supposition of an impossibility I answere it is indeed impossible any such euent should fall out as the dying of an Elect vessell with a beginning of Repentance and without faith in Christ and consequently without saluation therfore in respect of the euent such a supposition is needlesse but for all this there is some end of such a supposition in regard of that vse that may be made thereof viz to prooue the absolute necessitie of faith in Christ in all men and women of age and discretion which is so necessary that with no otheâ— grace either of Repentance Loue Patience or Obedience wee can please Goâ— vnto saluation the reason is because bâ— no grace else besides faith haue we Christ to please God for vs vnto our saluation Our Sauiour Christ makes a suppositâ—on about the deceiuing of the Elect wheâ— he faith that the false Apostles should dâ—ceiue if it were possible the very Elecâ— shall any man say this supposition wâ— idle Math. 24 24. because it was of an impossibility God forbid for though it were idle iâ— respect of the euent because it is impossible for any of the Elect so to be deceiueâ— and corrupted by the heresies of false teachers yet is it not idle in respect of the 〈◊〉 and end which Christ aymed at thereiâ— which was to shewe that the subtilty 〈◊〉 false Apostles Priests and Preachers in thâ— Antichristian Church by the depth of Sathan should be so great and they shoulâ— so faire preuaile with their pleasiâ— doctrines and lying words that if it were possible the very Elect should be deceiued thereby to the end that they might take heed how they heard them or gaue credit to their doctrine but abandon it and them as appeares by the 25. and 26. verses Secondly I answere to their exception suppose I meant positiuely that a man might die with this repentance and bee damned yet is not this vntrue vnderstanding by this true repentance that which I doe viz onely sorrow for sinne and purpose to leaue it without dissimulation as in the case of Abab and the Niniuites and not the tree with the fruite the purpose with the practise the change of the heart with the change of the liâ—e Obiect 1 Oh but say they though in one place I say repentance is not sufficient to saluation pag 232. yet in another I say the repentance of the Publicans Harlots was sufficient to their saluation I answere that there is no contradiction betweene these two places Solut. for in the former I doe not say it was not repentance sufficient vnto saluation but that it was not grace sufficient to saluation good cause by reason of the supposition that sauing faith is not yet wrought pag. 275. Neither doe I say in the latter place that the repentance of the Publicans was grace sufficient to saluation but that it was repentance sufficient thereunto for who knowes not by all that discourse that I speake of repentance properly and strictly therein and take repenting for an action of the soule and as it is a vertuous quality seated in the heart and what can be more required of the heart for repenting then harty sorrowing for sinnes and vnfained purpose to leaue them Indeed God requires more of the repenting sinner then this sorrow and purpose for he requires practise of this purpose and new obedience but practise is not repentance it selfe but a fruit of it and new obedience in life is not a part of repentance to constitute it but an effect to testifie it not to be the nature of it but the efficacy thereof vnto iustification Obiect 2 Oh but say they to this Repentance begun before faith is promised forgiuenes of sinnes
the way to another Baptisme that is of Christ and therefore he saide that they should beleeue in one that was to come after himselfe Next to the ancient Doctors follow the latter but learned Diuines Let vs saith Caluin prepare the way Caluins comment on Luke 3.4 that is leauing our sinnes which stoppe the way to the Kingdome of God let vs giue accesse vnto his grace â—elancth proâ—gom on â—e Epistle to â—â—e Romans Iustification saith Melanctâ—on ought to be vnderstood of the good will of God accepting vs not infusing into vâ— habits that is vertues and yet there ought to be vertues in vs because the Gospell preacheth Repentance and Faith cannot be but in RepentaÌ„ce therfore to the end our faith may be increased â—â—scators commentary on Luk. 3.4 our repentance must be increased That Christ may come into vs saith Piscator as our Sauiour wee must prepare the way vnto him by true Repentance by bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance Faith saith Rolloc doth alwayes follow a heart deiected and contrite in the sight of sinne and and misery Rollocks commentary on Ioa. 5.44 Dietericus Instit Catecheticae pag 241. de aenitentia Good workes follow Faith but Faith is in none but thâ—se that are conuerted I know well that they alleadge many testimonies against me both out of ancient and latter writers but being well considered they make nothing against me therefore one answere will serue for all for if they say Faith goes before Repentance they speake either of a beliefe of the word or of amendment of life When they speake of Faith which is a beliefe of the Word then the sense is a sinner must beleeue the threatning of the Word to the impenitent and the promises of it to the repentant before hee will sorrow for his sinnes or purpose to leaue them and to this purpose spake Clemens Alexandrinus of the precedency of Faith vnto Repentance saying Cleâ— Alexandâ— Stro â— 2 lâ— et graece p 7 Repentance is the office and worke of Faith for vnlesse a sinner belieue that there was sinne wherewith he was formerly held he will not be remoued and vnlesse he beleeue that punishment hangeth ouer his head which offendeth and that saluation is promised for him that liueth according to the coÌ„mandements he will not be changed Answerable to which is that knowne place of St. Ambrose Ambros de penitentia l. 1. c. 1 No man can repent rightly but hee that hopes for pardon In like manner when they speake of repentance that is amendment of life their meaning is a sinner must belieue in Christ before he amend his life Augus Se d tempore Seâ— 7. Hom 10. Gal 5.6 and practise new obedience and in this sense is St Augustine to be vnderstood where hee speakes of Repentance saying Nothing makes true Pepentance but the hatred of sinne and the loue of God the fire of this sacrifice is loue for that repentance that proceeds from the loue of God must proceed from faith in Christ for faith workes by loue Gal 5.6 but faith workes not by loue our first repentancâ— at our first conuersion which is sorrow for sinne and purpose to leaue it but amendment of life which followes faith Farre bee it from mee to presume to blame those worthy Authours for speaking promiscuously of Repentance the vertue and amendment of life the fruite thereof there is warrant enough from Scripture phrase so to speake in regard that where the one is the other also is or shall be in due time in the Elect for the one is the way to the other the repentance of the heart is the meanes to the repentance of the life that is amendment of the life But I blame those that oppose my opinion for producing such testimonies against mee when either they speake not of the same faith or not of the same repentance that I doe for touching faith they speak of a beleefe of the word and I of beleeuing in Christ and as for repentance I speake of the vertue it selfe they of the fruite of that vertue I of the purpose they of the practise my repentance is inward in the heart their outward in the life mine in the affections their in the actions for I haue often and plainely affirmed that a beliefe of the Word and Gospell goes before any repentance Ionah 3 5. and that faith in Christ goes before the practise of repentance in amendment of life and in the mortifying of our sinfull nature that it breake not out to the committing of the same sinnes againe To the third and last exception I answere that those allegations doe rather fortifie the testimony for mee then any way weaken it To the third 〈◊〉 last exception against the testimony out oâ— Mr. Perkins and make rather against them that alleadge it for first in that it is vrged the point was deliuered but in a passage only where he had no such cause to discourse of that matter this shewes that hee had the better minde to deliuer it belike because he thought it needfull and profitable to be opened and that hee was more confident in the trueth thereof secondly In that it is said the booke out of which the testimony was taken was the last of his writings which hee had not leasure to peruse and that it was put out after his death this implies that hee wrote that booke when he was of most sound and setled iudgement and that therefore the Doctrine in question was most free from exception and least needed correction and therefore howsoeuer there may seeme some contradiction in his other workes to that which is here deliuered yet must the last writing be esteemed a retractation of the first rather then the first of his writings should be produced against this last for the confutation of it And thus much of handling the point in question by proouing it and of proouing it by the testimonies of men now followes the proouing of it by arguments taken from Scripture which of the six generals was the fourth point propoundâ—d to bee obserued in discussing this question The Arguments are in number six but in weight they are all found too light We will examine their exceptions in order The Triall Repentance is begunne before Faith in Christ The first Argument because the Repentance of the Publicans and Harlots Mat. 21.31 was begunne before their Faith and theirs was true Repentance and sauing Faith The Exception To this they answere by granting that the Repentance and Faith of the Publicans and Harlâ—t were true and sauing but by denying that their repentance was to their Faith as a meanes to an end for say they the Text in Mathew shewes this onely that the Pharisees perseuered in their infidelity and abode in their vnbeliefe though the Publicans and Harlots beleeued or that the Pharisees neither repented not beleeued though the Publicans and Harlots did both before whom they should haue gone into
preaching of repentance first by chance or fortune but by the appointment and direction of Gods Spirit therefore must it bee vppon some good ground and if vpon some vpon what more likely then this viz that the duty of repentance was one of the first duties that was required to bee practised of them that were to be saued and before they could beleeue in Christ for saluation Their reasons likewise brought to ouerthrow my consequence are insufficient The first because though it be granted that when God calleth for any one grace none of the rest are excluded but included rather yet will not this prooue that in nature repentance goes before faith but onely that they both goe together in time and that both at one time they are wroght together Now for all this circumstance the worke of Repentance may in nature goe before faith in Christ The second because though that which is first placed bee not the first wroght in as much as that which is first in words may be last in sense yet for all this may repentance be first wrought seeing it is first taught because GOD vsually wrought graces as they were taught as hath beene shewed out of the Acts but euen now and therefore repentance may bee first both in sense as well as in wordes because it is first in nature as well as in words If they had giuen any reason why repentance could not bee first in sense or nature though it were so in words then had they indeed weakened my Argument but till then it is good enough The Exception But they will say Repentance was first preached because it was first felt The Apology I answere first if they could proue this to be the reason of their preaching it first I would discard my Argument and the probability it seemes to haue 2. I would faine know a reason why the duty of faith which is beleeuing in Christ of which the question is should not be as soone felt as the duty of repenting if the one be as truly wrought as the other Indeed the duties of repentance which are hearty sorrowe for past sinnes and purpose vnfained to leaue them are sooner felt then the comfort of faith which is assurance and perswasion of saluation by Christ but I can see no reason why the one habit or vertue should not be assoone perceiued and felt in the duties of it as the other The Exception But they vrge in their answere to this Argument that in my proofe hereof I contradict something deliuered else where for first in one place I say that repentance is the first grace that is wrought in men by preaching of the Gospell pag 261. and in another place I say that other graces goe before repâ—ntance pag 259. 260. Secondly there I speake of the practise of repentance assoone as it is wrought but in another I say that practise of repentance followes faith in Christ The Apology To the first I answere that I doe not say simply pa 262. that repentance goes before all grace for I neuer meant it went before a beliefe of the Gospell the contrary is euident by the state of the question pag 231. but onely that it goes before faith in Christ of the two that is Repentance and Faith Repentance is the first Besides all those graces that are saide else where to goe before Repentance doe but prepare to it so after a sort may be said to make vp but that grace of Repentance To the second supposed contradiction I answere that the imputation is vniust for where p. 261. l. 21. I speake of the practise of repentance as soone as it is wrought I onely meant the duty of repentance in the heart or the act of repenting as it is in the soule viz actuall sorrowing for past sinnes and resoluing to leaue them and in the latter place pag. 231. 21. 22. I speake of the practise of repentance in the life and conuersation that is of the effects and fruites of it when the inward purpose of the heart to leaue sinne is brought vnto an outward act and execution and therefore betwixt these no more then betwixt the other two is there any contradiction as is pretended either to the truth of Gods word or of mine owne opinion and this is sufficient to haue saide in defence of my six Arguments against that which by some hath beene obiected against my opinion The Arguments I haue already brought to prooue my opinion being defended against the exceptions of some It remaines that as yet they stand for good so that the maine question needes no more confirmation Notwithstanding it will not bee amisse by way of aduantage to adde one more to the former to driue the nayle to the head If repentance goe in nature before remission of sinnes then it goes in nature before Faith in Christ But repentance goes in nature before remission of sinnes Therefore repentance goes in nature before faith in Christ The consequence of the proposition viz repentance goes before faith because it goes before pardon I proue thus If repentance goe before remission of sinnes and not before faith in Christ then either it must goe hand in hand with iustifying faith or come betweene iustifying faith and iustification it selfe neither of which are true First repentance doth not goe hand in hand with iustifying faith first because then it should haue as great a hand in remission of sinne as faith in Christ or we must determine what part it hath in remission secondly they cannot answere so because they say repentance is a fruit of sanctification which followes iustification and therefore repentance cannot come before iustification with iustifying faith Secondly repentance doeth not come betweene iustifying faith and iustification it selfe for the one followes so immedâ—ately on the other that nothing can come betweene for no sooner can a sinner beleeue in Christ but immediatly he hath remission of his sinnes and is iustified The assumption viz Repentance goes before remission of sinnes I prooue by testimony of Scripture The testimonies of Scripture are these Deut 30.2 Ier. 18.8 4.4 26.3 Ezek. 18 21. Zech 1.3 Act. 2.38 3.19 26.18 1. Ioa. 1.7.9 wheÌ„ce I thus reason That which is required as a condition to be performed before wee obtaine pardon is before it in nature Repentance in all those is required of sinners as a condition to be performed before they obtaine pardon Therfore repentance is before remission of sins for it cannot be denied but that howsoeuer the end as apprehended possible to be had may stirre vp a man to vse the meanes which be in order to the obseruing thereof yet the meanes must needes in nature be before the actuall obtaining of the end neither can it bee denied but that Gods Spirit in the place afore named directs vs vnto repeÌ„tance as a means of obtaining forgiuenes by the apprehension of it appointing vs to vse the means to get it With this agrees the Doct of our Church
he may lawfully do it but doubting hereof But this Argâ—ment was not touched as being too hot for them So that it appearing by these reason that the meaning of those words whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne is not this that whatsoeuer a man doth before he beleeue in Christ he sinnes but whatsoeuer a man doth doubting he doth ill or fearing hee doth not well or not being well resolued in his minde it may lawfull be done either in it selfe or by him and yet will venture to do it he sinnes saith the Apostle because this acton is not of faith that is not of that faith of which he speakes Secondly I answere that they which vrge this place in this sense to proue whatsouer is without faith in Christ is sinne doe not well reseruing reuerence to their learning otherwayes for the Doctrine of 〈◊〉 text must be according to the sense of the words rightly expounded If then this place being rightly expounded speake not of beleefe in Christ then must no Doctrine concerning this beleefe be raised out of that text Rom. 14.23 except we wil make the Scripture say any thing any where which is presumption Thirdly I answere they which vrge this place against the Papists they do it â—o disprooue their will worship deuised by man without warrant of the word and such poynts as theis and in this case the text may be alledged against them because all such worshippe is without faith that is a man can haue no beleefe or perswasion to his conscience that he may lawfully vse it but in our question there is no talke of matters of this kinde and therefore their alleaging of it is no disparagement to my interpretation or defence to their Argument The Exception But they offer now to prooue their exposition by reasons to the end their Antecedent may be made good thereby to which I will answere seuerally The Apostle Rom. 14.23 speakes of faith in Christ To the first reason because he speakes of that faith which is faith of meates or of liberty from meates and this is a sauing faith because they that beleeue in Christ haâ—â— this liberty by faith The Apology I answere first it is supposed that tâ—â— faith spoken of in the place quoted is 〈◊〉 faith of liberty from meates but it is 〈◊〉 this onely but faith of bondage conceâ—ning meates for they are bound by thâ— text to abstaine from eating of theâ— they haue not that faith there meaâ— though they had a sauing faith as wâ— as they haue liberty to eate them tâ—â— haue the faith there spoken of when thâ— haue a sauing faith also else by their ruâ—â— man that eates of any meate sinnes not â—â—uing faith in Christ which is absurd sâ—condly though he had spoken onely faith of liberty from meates c. yet dâ— he not say there that they haue this libeâ— by faith in Christ which is the maâ— question as shall appeare by these tâ—â— reasons First they haue this liberty to eateâ— the meates there spoken of that haue a bâ—leefe and perswasion to their conscienâ—â— from some good grounds that they 〈◊〉 lawfully eate of them for this is the faâ— there spoken of as hath beene shewed 〈◊〉 three reasons euen now and this is not faith in Christ 2 by faith in Christ all the elect haue liberty a like from sinne hell and the diuell c that are bound by them but the Apostle speakes of a liberty from a bondage with which all men are not bound for all men were not bound with the bondage of obseruing of dayes and meates but the Iewes onely and Proselites and therefore not all Christians but the Iewish Christians haue liberty by the faith spoken from the things to which they are bound and consequently the faith there spoken of must be not a sauing faith which pertaines to all Christians Iewes and Gentiles but a faith which pertaines to Christians which were bound to the law of abstinence viz. a beleefe or perswasion of liberty to eate the meate there spoken of though otherwise forbidden Besides if it would follow that because only beleeuers in Christ haue liberty from meates therefore the faith there spoken of Rom. 14.23 is faith of liberty from meates then by a like consequence might it follow but absurdly that because onely beleeuers in Christ are saued and sanctified therefore faith in Christ is sanctification and saluation The Exception Secondly the Apostle Rom. 14.23 speakes of faith in Christ To the second reason because hee speakes of that faith whereby we are perswaded we haue warrant and precept for liberty out of the word of God for thâ—â— is a sauing faith The Apology I answere the reason is not good because this faith whereby we are perswaded we haue warrant and precept from the word for liberty out of the word of God suppose it be for Christian liberty else I can make no sense of the word a but a perswasion of a truth or an assured assent in my opinion and iudgement of the truth of this Doctrine and this can be but an Historicall faith it is not a sauing faith The Exception But they will obiect though the Apostle Rom. 14.23 do not directly intend to speake of faith in Christ yet by a consequence the Doctrine may be true from that place for if whatsoeuer be without a perswasion to our conscience and this beleefe be a sinne then much more whatsoeuer is without faith in Christ which is a more excellent Faith and more necessarie then this The Apology I deny the consequence except the want and absence of the one faith made an action to be sinne as well as the want and absence of the other This cannot be First because then I know not how it can be auoyded but that the presence of faith in Christ should make an Action not to be sinne which is absurd in as much as faith in Christ doth not cause an action to bee no sinne but not to be imputed for sinne vnto vs for our condemnation Secondly because that which makes an action to be no sinne is the likenesse and neernesse it hath with the Rule of Gods will prescribed for the doing thereof which in morall actions commanded or forbidden is the Law of God and in indifferent actions which are neither commaunded nor forbidden is this Faith whereof the Apostle speakes Rom. 14. viz. a perswasion or beliefe wee may doe or may not doe them neither of which is faith in Christ Indeed faith in Christ is more necessary and excellent vnto saluation then this perswasion but this perswasion is more proper and necessary then faith in Christ to warrant vnto our consciences the actions that wee haue to doe that bee indifferent But it may bee though the Doctrine be neither directly nor by necessarie consequence to bee prooued from the text to the Romanes yet by other Reasons taken from other places it may be Let vs heare and try them The Exception Whatsoeuer is not of
Faith is sinne because whatsoeuer is not of Christ is sinne for to be without faith and to be without Christ are all one The Apology I answere as touching acceptation vnto saluation it is all one in the euent to be without Christ the meritorious cause of saluation â—arke 16.16 as to bee without faith the instrumentall For a man cannot bee saued without either Mar. 16.16 But to all intents and purposes it is not all one to be without Christ and faith for it is not all one to the making of our actions to bee sinne in the nature of sin It is neither being without Christ nor faith that doth this for these only do cause that our actions bee not imputed for sinne vnto vs and not that they bee no sinns The sweruing from the law and Rule of God is that onely which makes an action sinfull The Exception Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne 1. Ioan. because whatsoeuer is done without spirituall life is sinne The Apology I answere How farre and in what sense faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians shall bee shewed God willing in the fourth obiection For the present it is enough for the answere of this obiection to say that it prooues idem per idem which is as much as to say it prooues nothing in the question for with them faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians as shall appeare in the fourth obiection and the spirituall life of Christians is faith as appeares by this obiection If with them faith be the spirituall life of Christians and if the spirituall life of Christians be faith then that Argument that prooues euery action sinfull that is done without spirituall life namely because it is done without faith and againe that Argument that prooues euery action sinfull that is done without faith namely because it is done without spiritual life I both their say arguments prooue nothing for vpon the matter in this question they begge the question The Tryall To conclude in answere to this Argument and for a reason of denying the consequence I sayd that though Repentance bee begun before faith yet it is not sinne for all that because a beliefe of the Gospel goes before faith in Christ yet is it not sinne The Exception This instance they offer to take away and giue three Reasons why an Historicall faith going before a sauing faith is sinne to which I will answere An Historicall faith without faith in Christ is sinne because it is no where alone required The Apology I answere First to the Antecedant that if 〈◊〉 by these wordes required alone be meant that a beliefe of the Gospel is so required alone in one place that there is no more else where required of men to their saluation then I confesse that a belief of the Gospel is no where required alone but if thereby be meant as it must be if it bee to purpose that there is no place of Scripture in which the duty of beleeuing the Gospell is onely taught and that in euery place where beleeuing the Gospell is onely taught beleeuing in Christ is taught also then I deny it for the Scripture doth not teach euery duty in euery place except wee shall obserue no rules of Art in expounding Scripture Secondly to the consequence I answer that though beleeuing the Gospell were no where alone required yet will it not be sinne for all that because it is a duty in the word commanded to be performed of all the Elect to make them capable of saluation and no such thing can be sinne God doth require of men that which is taught them and as it is taught and sometimes it may fall out a Preacher by occasion of his text or in a Catechisme lecture may onely teach men to beleeue the Gospell vpon Gods owne authority shall we say the Minister sinnes in teaching it alone or the people in learning it alone at that time not hauing then a sauing Faith Surely God is not a hard man that takes vp where he layes not downe Luk. 17.21 nor requires that which hee doeth not teach or offer to worke The Exception An Historicall Faith without Faith in Christ is sinne because God requires more Faith then this The Apology To the consequence I answere that though God require more Faith then the beliefe of the Gospell of them that shall be saued yet is not this sinne when it is alone without a sauing Faith for God requires more then godly sorrow of a Repentant sinner viz an vnfained purpose to leaue his sinnes and in time to practise new obedience Is therefore godly sorrow for sinne sinne indeed in a man because as yet hee hath not a godly purpose to leaue his sinnes wrought in him surely such Diuinitie can neuer doe good in the Church of Christ The Exception An historicall faith without faith in Christ is sinne because it may bee in Reprobates The Apology It cannot bee denied but a beliefe of the Gospell may bee in Reprobates yet will it therefore follow to bee sinne Math. was â—he gift of miracles sinne in the Reprobates because it was in them surely no. It is not the hauing of the gifts of the Spirit that makes them to bee sinne to reprobates or in them but the not vsing of them well to the honour of God and the good of the Church and it is their contenting of themselues onely with those when they should labour for other and more that causeth them to be sins in reprobates for as they be had so they come from God and as they come from God so they are good and as they are good they cannot be sinne though as they are in them not vsed at all or not well vsed or not enough vsed or abused they may prooue sinne in them yet simply because they are in them or as they are in them they are not and so much in answere to their Defence of their first obiection against my Doctrine of the precedency of Repentance vnto Faith in Christ The Triall Repentance is not begun before Faith in Christ The second Obiection because then it should proceede out of an heart vnpurified for the heart is purified by Faith Act. 15.9 To this I answered that it proues not the question because the proofe of it out of the Acts is not to purpose first because it doeth not at all speake of purifying by sanctification of which the question is but by iustification of which it is not secondly though it had spoken of purifying by sanctification yet doth it not prooue that Faith so purifieth the heart that till Faith in Christ come there is not so much as the least measure of this purifying begunne for so is the Antecedent to bee vnderstood The Exception To make their Argument good they bring reasons first they prooue that the Text in the Acts is to be vnderstood of purifying by sanctification from the filth of sinne as well as by
iustification from the guilt of sinne secondly they shew that though it could not bee prooued by that place of the Acts that Faith purifies in that manner yet by reason from other Scriptures doe they indeauour to prooue it to which I will answere in order The Text Acts 15 9. is to be vnderstood of purifying by sanctification as well as by iustification because it is Faith in Christs blood and Christs blood purifies both wayes The Apology The reason is not good because it takes for graunted that wheresoeuer the holy Ghost speakes of cleansing by Christs blood both must be vnderstood The contrary is cleare by these places Ro. 3.18 5.9 Eph. 1.7 1. Pet. 1 9. Ioa. 1.7.9 which must bee vnderstood onely of one viz purifying by iustification for though Legall purifyings taught both and Christs blood bee effectuall to the Elect in both kindes yet will it not follow to be so vnderstood euery where of both and that the holy Ghost meanes both and therefore not Act. 15.9 Besides the Text Acts 15.9 by the precedent subsequent matter shewes clearely it meanes but one viz iustification in that the words are an answer in part to a question that questioÌ„ was not whether sinners were sanctified but whether or no they were iustified by faith in Christ Men are not to make the Scripture a nose of waxe to say euery thing in euery place specially when it expounds it selfe directly of what purifying it speakes and the point of purifying by sanctification is not denied to faith simply for I confesse it may be prooued by another Text but onely to bee meant there viz Acts 15.9 The Exception Secondly the Text Acts 15.9 Is to be vnderstood of purifying by sanctification as wel as by iustification because it speaks of purifying by sauing and sauing comprehends sanctification as well as iustification The Apology The reason is not good because it is not true which is supposed that wheresoeuer the holy Ghost speakes of sauing viz spiritually he comprehends both for these Texts Rom. 5.9 1. Cor. 5.5 Io. 5.20 are vnderstood of sauing by iustification onely Indeed they that are saued are sanctified yet where sauing faith is attributed to any it doth not follow that there by sauing should be meant sactifying The Exception Thirdly Act. 15.9 must bee vnderstood of purifying both wayes because sanctification is directly attributed vnto faith Acts 26.18 The Apology I answere first that if it be a good rule to expound one Scripture by another and the darker by the plainer then may the Text Act. 26.18 be expounded by Acts 15.9 for the circumstances of the Text in the 26. chap. doe not shew of what purifying it meanes but the scope of the place in the 15. Acts doth And therefore the clearer Acts 15. should expound the darker in the 26. chapter the rather because in the 26. chapter sanctification is expressed by other wordes of turning them from darkenesse to light and from the power of Sathan to God and therefore for all this Acts 15.9 must not be vnderstood of purifying by sanctification Secondly I deny not but faith in some sense sanctifies vs viz as it teacheth it Tit. 2.11 as it stirres vp to it by the comforts thereof Rom 121. Ioa. 2. but neither will it be prooued from thence that therefore purifying Acts 15.9 must be meant of purifying by sanctification because it is so vnderstood Acts. 26 18. vnlesse the Apostle had in both places spoken of the same matter vpon the same occasion and to the same end in both which cannot bee verified of these two places in the Acts. Nor yet will it follow that before faith doe sanctifie the heart it is totally impure with the filth of sinne notwithstanding any graces of the Spirit wrought therein which is the point to be proued in the Antecedent Indeed vpon saying we are iustified by faith it will thereupon follow that wee are totally vniustified that is actually before we beleeue in Christ but in saying wee are sanctified by faith it will not thereupon follow that we are totally vnsanctified before faith come and the Reason is because faith by it office doeth more properly iustifie then sanctifie and iustification doeth not suscipere magis minus aâ— sanctification doth neither is wrought by parts and degrees as sanctification is The Exception In the last place they alleadge that many learned and sound Diuines doe expound Act. 15.9 of sanctification The Apology I grant it but not to prooue an absolute and totall impurity in mans heart before Faith as they doe but that there is not purity enough to saluation without Faith in Christ and that it stirres vp the heart of a man more to labour for an increase of sanctification begun But though they had yet doe not I thinke it reasonable or possible for euery Writer among the Protestants in these dayes to maintaine euery position in Diuinity of â—xposition of Scripture that hath beene giuen and deliuered by others in former times To conclude If a man bee elected in Christ and for his sake before he be actually in him or haue any faith in him why may they not for his sake also bee in part sanctified before Christ bee actually in them by Faith or Faith bee wrought in them actually The Exception The second thing vndertaken for the proofe of this their Argument is that by Reasons from other places of Scripture it may be prooued that Faith doeth sanctifie as well as iustifie though it cannot from Acts 15.9 The reasons they bring are three and I will answere them all briefely and in one answere Faith say thy doth purifie by sanctification as wâ—ll as by iustification first because it is Faith in Christs blood which purifies both wayes secondly because the larger Catechisme saith so thirdly because I my selfe say so in my Treatise The Apology To all these three Reasons I answere that neither any one singly nor all of them ioyntly prooue the point in question which is that Faith so sanctifies the heart that there is not so much as the least measure of sanctification begunne in the heart till faith bee wrought for at the most they prooue that which I deny not but confesse as well as they that faith in in Christ teacheth sanctification increaseth it and makes it acceptable to our saluation The Exception Obiect 1 Oh but say they before Christ bee in men there can bee no sanctification in them and before faith be in them Christ cannot be in them The Apology Solut. Before Faith be in men Christ is not in them actually by his sufficient sauing grace but Christ may be in men some way namely by his wisedome and enlightning grace before faith in Christ bee in them Before Christ bee in men there is not sanctification enough in measure nor sufficient vnto acceptation for our saluation wrought in vs but before Christ be in vs actually by faith sanctification may be begunne by the preparations and dispositions to
by any strength of nature before sauing faith as a beliefe of the Gospell sight of his sinnes feare of damnation c. Secondly to the proofe of this argument out of the Epistle to of the Galathians I answere first that where they say it is the spirituall life of the soule euery way I answere that neither doth the Apostle say so nor doe they prooue it sufficiently I haue saide enough to the contrary pag 178. which is not answered secondly I answere that sauing faith is the life of a Christian in respect of iustification and sanctification not in respect of whatsoeuer is in him which is not natural The Exception To maintaine their argument now they iudeauour to proue two things first that the text Gal 2.20 is to be vnderstood of spirituall life euery way Secondly that though it could not be prooued from that place yet might it bee prooued by sufficient reasons grounded on other Scripture that faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians euery way To prooue the first concerning that Text to the Galathians they bring this reason The life spoken of Gallat 2.20 is life by saluation therefore by iustification and fanctification therefore euery way The Apology I answer Paules liuing by faith must be vnderstood of such a life as is attributed vnto others by faith in the same chapter and epistle but to others viz. all the elect in the same chapter is attributed the life of iustification and life is expounded thereof onely Chap. 2.16 3.11 and therefore the life which Paule liued by faith spoken of in the 2. chapter and 20. must be the life of iustification onely and not of sanctification at all The Exception Oh but will they say I my selfe in my Treatise say that the text Gallat 2.20 is vnderstood of spirituall life vnto iustification and saluation pag. 278. The Apology True but by mine owne words it is euident what saluation I meane viz. Iustification or forgiuenesse of sinnes or sauing from hell not saluation which comprehends sanctification as they would interpret me Besides neither the word saue nor Sauiour is vsed in all the Epistle to the Galathians therefore cannot be vnderstood of such a saluation Adde to this that when we say Christ is our Sauiour we do not meane he is our sanctifier but one that keepes vs from hell and brings vs to heauen For the power of sinne is a distinct thing from the punishment and as the power of sinne is taken away by sanctification onely so is the punishment by iustification onely saluation is vnderstood of Iustification and of that which as a consequence follows on it our glorification Oh but may they say Pauls liuing by faith ver 10. was the same with his liuing to God ver 19. and that is the life of sanctification I answere liuing to God ver 19. must either be the same with liuing in his fauor and free grace by Christ and then it is alâ— one wtih beeing iustified by God through faith ver 16. or else it must bee opposed vnto death to the Law and death to the Law is in his meaning renouncing it to iustification as being vnable to keepe it and by keeping it to bee iustified by iâ— and therefore liuing vnto God is seeking vnto the meanes appointed by him foâ— iustification and liuing in his sight by faitâ— in his free grace 2. If by those wordâ— were vnderstood I am sanctified by faith then must the meaning of them bee to this effect in that I haue had any motions to holinesse preparations to sanctification or any the least inclinatioÌ„ therunto I haue had it by the faith of Iesus Christ before I beleeued in Christ I had not the least beginning thereof in any kinde but this is contradicted by other Texts of Scripture where it is sayd of S. Paul He was taught according to the perfect maner of the Fathers Act. 2.23 and was zealous towards God and that hee had liued in all good conscience before God vntiâ— that day Namely according to the light hee had by the Law and the Prophets 3. Suppose it could be prooued that Paul lyued vnto God any way before hee belieued in Christ yet will not this prooue he had no beginning at all of spiritual life before hee beleiued in Christ for to liue to God is a plaine fruit of sauing faith and a man may haue fome spirituall life begun in some sense and not liue to God Lastly though it could be proued that Paul had no spirituall liâ—e begun in him before he beleeued in Christ yet wil not his example proue that no man hath any spirituall life begunne in him before hee beleeue in Christ inasmuch as Pâ—ules conuersion was extraordinary for the gifts and graces of the spirit needfull to saluation where in all likly hood wrought in him at once and together in an enthusiasme so are they not vsuall in all men and women in these dayes but one after another successiuely Sermon after Sermon and weeke after weeke and so much for answere touching their proofe out of the epistle to the Gallathians the first thing propounded to make good their Argument The Exception The second followes which is to proue that faith in Christ is the spirituall life of Christians euery way and that there is no spirituall life begunne in men before they beleiue in Christ and their reasons are foure to which I will answere seuerally There is no spirituall life begunne in men before faith in Christ because till then then they are dead in sinnes and trespasses The Apology I answere in him that is dead in trespasses and sinnes there is no spirituall life of iustification or sanctification but in him in whom repentance is begunne and other preparations there is somewhat more then that which is naturall whereby in some sort he is in a middle estate although indeede he be still a naturall man because nature hath the predominancy in him and in this state he continues till he be regenerate in all parts which is assoone as he beleeues in Christ and in this state was Nicodemus Ioa. 3. who came to Christ was taught of him that which was not naturall was wrought in him and yet he had not a sauing faith The Exception There is no spirituall life begunne in men before faith in Christ because till then they haue not Christ The Apology The reason is not good because though before faith in Christ they haue not Christ in his righteousnesse to their iustification and in his sanctification to their sanctification and full conuersion both of heart and life yet may they in whom repentance is begunne and these preparations haue him in them some way viz. in his wisedome to their Illumination and the beginning of their conuersion The Exception There is no spirituall life begunne in men before faith in Christ because till then they haue not the spirit Gal. 3.2 I answere 1 the extraordinary gifts of the spirit were not giuen
vs till wee bee actually vnited to him by Faith which is the question The contrary may bee seene in illumination a beleefe of the Gospell and vocation which are and may bee wrought in the elect before this vnion Romans 8.20 though they tend to regeneration or rather are a branch and member thereof and there can noe inconuenience follow hereupon as long as the regeneration begunne before this actuall vnion is the worke of the spirit in the elect and for Christs sake that shall be perfected in due time appointed by God for that end The Exception Secondly they prooue that regeneration is not begunne before faith in Christ because I my selfe say as much in my treatise pag. 310. The Apology I answere by acknowledging that faith in Christ becomes effectuall to bring forth good workes and new obedience in a holy life and to beget in vs other Christian graces as hope ioy peace newnesse of heart and vprightnesse c. which are the fruites of faith in Christ and it becomes thus effectuall by our vnion with Christ through faith but I doe not there affirme which is alleaged and is the point to bee prooued that no grace tending to regeneration as a disposition to it is wtought before this our vnion and therefore for all these two reasons their last Argument is weake and insufficient As I haue added to my six arguments one more in defence of my opinion so will I adde one more obiection which is an argument of theirs against it and it is this The Exception If faith in Christ goe before loue and loue before repentance then faith goes before repentance But faith in Christ goes before loue and loue before repentance Therefore faith goes before repentance The consequence they thinke is good because that which goes before the cause goes before the effect ergo if faith go before the cause of repentance which is loue then must it goe before repentance which is the fruite of loue The Assumption they prooue in the parts of it 1 Faith goes before loue because faith workes by loue Gal. 5.6 2 Loue goes before repentance for the doctrine of the Church of England sayth so The Apology I answere 1. If by loue be meant any kinde of loue to God then I grant the consequence and deny the assumption But if thereby bee meant that loue of God which proceedeth from our actuall being beloued of God in Christ and our apprehending of the same in our owne perticular iustification then I deny the consequence and grant the assumption Some loue of God may be before iustifiing faith for God is the obiect of loue and God may bee conceiued and apprehended as louing not onely in many temporall blessings but euen in some spiritual before men beleeue in Christ For God may be apprehended louing in sending his sonne to purchase redemption for man and manifesting in the meanes a possibility of obtaining our share therein vpon repentance and faith in Christ and as preparing vâ— by some workes of Gods Spirit to faith in Christ and if we may be some way affected towards God vpon these considerations and grounds before faith in Christ then may there be some loue before faith and if our loue to God bee suteable to such preparing workes of Gods Spirit as haue yer bin past vpon vs and such good as hath bin manifested to vâ— from God I say such loue is true in it kind as being answerable to that which God aimes at in such meanes though not with that perfection which is requisite to saluation immediately yet with that which is requisite by way of disposition and preparatorily But that loue of God which proceedeth from the receiuing and apprehension of our iustification is a fruit of faith in Christ and followes it 2. I answer that if by repentance be meant the practise of amendment of life and new obedience then the loue of God goes before repentance but if by repentance be meant hearty sorrow for sinne past and true purpose to leaue it then I say the loue of God doth not go before repentance Touching the first part of their asumption out of the Galathians that faith goes before loue I say it is not to purpose because it proues not that faith goes before all loue but only that loue which proceeds from our first beeing beloued of God which we apprehend by faith in Christ Neither is the doctrine of the Church of England out of the Homilies rightly alleaged to proue the 2 part of their assumption viz. that repentance hath an ingredient charity that repentance is a fruite of the loue of God for the repentance the Homily speakes of is not repentance strictly taken viz. sorrow for sinne and purpose of leauing it of which I speake but the whole worke of Gods Spirit on man to make him capable of iustification and salvation or the whole conuersion of man in minde and will in affections and actions inward and outward and this appeares in that it makes foure parts of repentance there spoken of viz. 1. Sorrow for sinne 2. acknowledgment and confession of it 3. faith in Christ and 4. amendment of life in which sense it is no maruell if hee include loue and charity in repentance soe that there is no reason to conclude thence that loue is included in repentance strictly taken as I do except they meane by loue some affection to God for making it possible for vs to bee saued and prouiding a meanes to that end and not a loue of God for our being actually saued or meane by repentance amendment of life for this is a fruite of loue and in this sence it is that St. Augustine speakes to this effect Many do daily say they are sinners and yet still they delight to sinne this is but profession not amendment the soule is accused not healed the offence is pronounced not taken away August 10. tom Ser. 7. de tempore nothing makes true repentance but the hatred of sinne and loue of God the fire of this sacrifice is loue Now at length I draw homeward toward a conclusion of the whole namely to the last thing propounded in handling this point of the precedency of repentance vnto faith in Christ which is the vse and application I made thereof in my Treatise with which as with the rest there is fault found It will not be worth my labour to confute muchlesse recite the particular faults and aberations they espie therein The applying of the point because the answere vnto them will little serue to the cleering of the Doctrine it selfe partly because that which I should write in confutation thereof must be gathered out of that I haue already sayd in this Defence and partly also because the whole frame of those exceptions will of it selfe vpon my Defence fall to the ground For I thinke they would neuer haue written against the application but vpon a supposition that the point whereupon it was raysed is vnsound for
iustification and yet in the Title of my second Booke I name my first Booke a Triall of Faith concerning iustification by faith but this doth not argue me of lying and contradiction which I thus declare 1. because I do not entitle my first Booke a Triall of the Doctrine of iustification but a Triall of Faith 2. Forasmuch as faith is taken in Scripture in one sense wherein we conceitâ— it not to iustifie and in another wherein we conceiue it doth iustifie To the end I might fully declare that my intent was in my Booke to speake of the latter not of the former I added in the title of the second Booke these words viz. concerning the Doctrine of iustification in Faith So that the sentence wherein hee supposeth the contradiction to bee hath this sense the Triall of faith viz. of that faith which concernes iustification by faith And that the latter words viz. concerning the Doctrine of iustification by faith do argue that by Faith I meant iustifying faith this Argument will shew That Faith which concernes the Doctrine of iustification by faith is iustifying Faith for no faith doth concerne that Doctrine but iustifying faith But the Faith whereof I wrote doth concerne the Doctrine of iustification by faith so saith the title of the second booke Therefore the faith whereof I speake is a iustifying Faith If hee would argue me of lying and contradiction herein it must be by such an Argument as this That booke which concernes the Doctrine of iustification by faith is a Treatise of iustification But my first booke concernes the Doctrine of iustification by faith so faith my second Booke in the Title Therefore my first Booke is a Treatise of iustification To this I answere iustification may be considered either as it is explicated and treated of by all the causes thereof and all the arguments incident thereunto or as it is considered onely in one cause concurring thereunto In the first sense I grant the proposition to be true viz. he that writes a booke of iustification and explicates it in that large manner doth write a booke of iustification but in this sense his assumption is false for in the sentence he alleaged against me I limit the Doctrine of my booke to speake concerning iustification by faith that is of iustification so farre as it is by faith and of faith so farre as it concernes iustification which is to speake of iustification as it depends vppon one cause and of faith as it is one cause of iustification And so I hope I haue cleared it to the iudgement of all indifferent and iudicious men that I haue not deserued to be accused of periury lying and contradiction I should now proceede to say something touching the last imputation obiected against me in those papers which is acquiuocation but this will neede no answere for who knowes not that I am not a Iesuite nor the sonne of a Iesuite whose practise and Art it is I haue solemly protested against it in my Defence pag. 35. and I hope my carriage in my Ministery and conuersation these twenty yeares in the City and Parish where I dwell will suffiently purge me from the suspicion of it In a word In morall Philosophy hee is sayd to speake truth who speakes as he thinkes though he thinkes not as the thing is and in Logicke hee is accompted to speake truth that speakes as the thing is though he thinkes not as he speakes But in Diuinity there is required a dâ—uble conformity and agreement with truth of the thing and the truth of the thoght and this I haue obserued in the Defence of my Doctrine touching iustifying faith For writing the truth of the matter I referred my selfe to the iudgement of the learned by whom my Defence and Apology were approued and for the writing the truth of my meaning I appeale to the righteous Iudge of the whole world It may be that the Lord will looke on my affliction 2 Sam 6. â—â— and that the Lord will requite good for his cursing this day